Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / June 2004
Prakticar Carl Zeiss Jena - Confused of Hereford
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Tony - 14 Jun 2004 09:29 GMT Hi,
I've just bought on eBay a kit based on the Praktica BX20, this came with Prakticar lenses 135/2.8, 28/2.8 50/2.4 and two Sigma zooms. I have been dredging through eBay and photo dealers sites and am aware that there appear to be the same lenses "badged" Praktica and Carl Zeiss Jena. Some of the Carl Zeiss lenses command high prices, especially the "Sonnar" "Flektacon" - whatever that means?.
Having received excellent advice on this group re suitable slide film for landscape and flora photography, I hope that some of you gurus may be able to enlighten me on the various lenses from Praktica and its associates. Using slow speed slide film and often using extension tubes to take very close up photos of plants the lens quality is very important to me.
In case you wonder why I've gone for the Praktica kit it is simply cost, I needed a reasonably comprehensive outfit and had less than ?100 to spend.
So far I have found the BX20 amazingly versatile, it may not have the "feel" of one of the Japanese marques but it seems to "have it where it counts".
Thanks in anticipation, Tony
mark Dunn - 14 Jun 2004 11:55 GMT 'Carl Zeiss' and 'Carl Zeiss Jena' are quite different makes. Both are German but Jena is in the former East Germany. Before the wall came down the Jena lenses were much cheaper but considered optically inferior. I'm not sure anyone not using a test bench would notice any difference outside their bank account.
> Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Thanks in anticipation, > Tony Willy Eckerslyke - 14 Jun 2004 12:05 GMT > 'Carl Zeiss' and 'Carl Zeiss Jena' are quite different makes. Both are > German but Jena is in the former East Germany. Before the wall came down the > Jena lenses were much cheaper but considered optically inferior. I'm not > sure anyone not using a test bench would notice any difference outside their > bank account. Oh yes they would! A colleague of mine once bought a CZ Jena zoom that was like looking through the bottom of a milk bottle. OK, it was trying to do a ridiculous task, 28-210 or something ludicrous, but even so I can't see any half decent manufacturer selling anything so dire.
Perhaps their less ambitious stuff was better, but I'm not that eager to find out.
Andy Hewitt - 14 Jun 2004 19:34 GMT > > 'Carl Zeiss' and 'Carl Zeiss Jena' are quite different makes. Both are > > German but Jena is in the former East Germany. Before the wall came down the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to do a ridiculous task, 28-210 or something ludicrous, but even so > I can't see any half decent manufacturer selling anything so dire. I have a Carl Zeiss Jena 70-210 lens for my OM40 which has given good service for the last 20 years.
 Signature Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
Michael J Davis - 14 Jun 2004 23:37 GMT Willy Eckerslyke <oss108no_spam@bangor.ac.uk> observed
>> 'Carl Zeiss' and 'Carl Zeiss Jena' are quite different makes. Both are >> German but Jena is in the former East Germany. Before the wall came down the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Perhaps their less ambitious stuff was better, but I'm not that eager >to find out. I had a Practika[1] projector that was quite respectable, IIRC that was one of their brand names.
Mike
[1] no 'r' at the end. [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
 Signature Michael J Davis <>< Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused the meaning of "discussion" with "digression". <><
Willy Eckerslyke - 15 Jun 2004 09:30 GMT > I had a Practika[1] projector that was quite respectable, IIRC that was > one of their brand names. Having slated them for one of their lenses, I've just remembered that my first "real" camera was a Practika Nova handed down by my grandfather. I did replace its standard lens with a lovely 15 pound Super Takumar though. I loved it, but when I looked it again years later, the viewfinder seemed so dark and vignetted that I was amazed I'd ever managed to see anything through it.
Paul Friday - 16 Jun 2004 22:07 GMT >Having slated them for one of their lenses, I've just remembered that >my first "real" camera was a Practika Nova handed down by my >grandfather. I did replace its standard lens with a lovely 15 pound >Super Takumar though. I loved it, but when I looked it again years >later, the viewfinder seemed so dark and vignetted that I was amazed >I'd ever managed to see anything through it. I have a Nova - the ultimate post-apocolyptic manual-everything lump of iron and glass. Spot on with the dark viewfinder, though.
 Signature ---------------------------- Paul Friday
Stewart Gardiner - 14 Jun 2004 14:25 GMT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Some of the Carl Zeiss lenses command high prices, especially the "Sonnar" > "Flektacon" - whatever that means?. There is quite a bit of history to this which I'll attempt to summarise.
After the second world war the Carl Zeiss factory in Jena was nationalised by the Communist East German government. A number of the Carl Zeiss personnel fled to West Germany to establish a rival company, also called Carl Zeiss. In the U.S. the West German operation won the right to the Carl Zeiss name so that all Carl Zeiss Jena lenses exported to America were labelled "Aus Jena".
Praktica SLRs were manufactured by Pentacon in Dresden. In the 50s and 60s Pentacon cameras came with a choice of lens options, the basic package was a body plus a 50/2.8 lens from Meyer Optik called the Domiplan. By paying a bit more you could upgrade to a superior Carl Zeiss Jena lens like the 50/1.8 Pancolor. At this time most German lens designs from both East and West were given names by the manufacturers. The Pancolar for instance was the CZJ version of the Planar, a five element fast lens. Both Zeiss operations also produced slower pre-war Tessar designs consisting of four elements in three groups. The Sonnar was another term used by both East and West German companies to denote a telephoto design also using four elements in three groups. Flektogon was used by Jena to describe their wide angle optics, the West German equivalent was Distagon.
With the launch of the B-series cameras in 1979 (of which your BX20 is a descendent), these old naming conventions were done away with and all of the East German lenses (and some new Japanese made lenses) for the new bayonet mount were simply described as Prakticar. For example, what had previously been the Carl Zeiss Flektogon 35 f2.4 lens in M42 mount became the CZJ Prakticar 35/2.4 in B mount.
In the late eighties the whole East German camera and optical industry was consolidated in one company. Carl Zeiss Jena became a brand that was applied to lenses which had been designed by Pentacon and Meyer, not just those from the original Zeiss factory. For instance, the Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar 28/2.8 is just a rebadged Pentacon 28/2.8.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more confusing, the name was also licensed to Sigma to produce a the Jenazoom range of zoom lenses available in most of the manual focus mounts of the late eighties.
After the re-unification of Germany the West German Zeiss operation bought out the Eastern company and lens production for consumer cameras ceased at Jena.
Focal lengths and max apertures of the more common "genuine" Carl Zeiss Jena lenses in B-mount are 20/2.8, 35/2.4, 50/1.4, and 135/3.5. The 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8 "Carl Zeiss Jena P" lenses are rebadged Pentacon lenses.
For more information check out www.praktica-users.com On this site you can also see Jon Gibbs's flower close-ups taken with a 135/3.5 Zeiss Jena lens and bellows which may interest you.
http://www.praktica-users.com/picindex.html
Mike Hunter - 14 Jun 2004 15:31 GMT > > Hi, > > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > http://www.praktica-users.com/picindex.html I believe that Carl Zeiss Jena was one of the "prizes" of German reunification - as a world-class optical instrument maker (but NOT as a camera lens maker!).
The big problem is not the optical quality of Practica "B" lenses (not top-notch but a decent example will take good negs capable of high enlargement), but the fact that the iris tends to fall apart - rendering the lens useless. Happened to 3 of mine : 50mm f1.8 (after 4 year's use), the replacement 50mm f1.8 (after only a few month's use) and a 135mm f2.8. At that point I gave up and bought a proper camera - after some 20 yrs of various Praktikas.
Mike
Tony - 14 Jun 2004 18:35 GMT Thanks very much for all the info, I think I'm a little less confused, but to quote Douglas Adams "then I think rain is wet, so who am I to judge". I really appreciate the responses, I was "warned off" Praktica etc (I'm not going there !) by a couple of independent camera shops. The manager of a local shop who seems a decent sort of bloke, said that the cameras and optics are pretty good, but they are let down on the reliability front, which is why he doesn't stock the kit.
I've yet to put a film thro the BX20, waiting for the film I've ordered from 7dayshop but playing with the camera it seems very capable, shame it doesn't have a PC socket. It may be that I've "jumped the gun" a little on getting this kit, I need kit that will be serviceable when I'm out in the wilds, so maybe best to reflog the kit and get something a little more sturdy. It may be back to an old faithful K1000 as I had some 30 years back !
My only previous experience with Praktica etc kit has been with a F2.4 35mm lens I had on a Chinon CM3 body a while back, that lens seemed optically superb, but a little less robustly built than the Japanese own brand lenses.
Once again thanks to all who have replied, wishing you all good luck with your photography
Tony
> > > Hi, > > > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > > Mike Andy Hewitt - 14 Jun 2004 19:34 GMT > Thanks very much for all the info, I think I'm a little less confused, but > to quote Douglas Adams [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but they are let down on the reliability front, which is why he doesn't > stock the kit. That's somewhat puzzling. Certainly newer stuff might be iffy, I do have some cheap Praktica binoculars that are indeed crap. However, my wife has a Praktica MTL5 camera and lens that she got some 20 odd years ago. I costs us 30 quid for a service a little while ago, but can still take very good pictures indeed.
In the early eighties Pracktica made very sound products at a very reasnable price.
 Signature Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
Stewart Gardiner - 15 Jun 2004 17:13 GMT > > The manager of a local shop who seems > > a decent sort of bloke, said that the cameras and optics are pretty good, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I costs us 30 quid for a service a little while ago, but can still take > very good pictures indeed. I think this is probably a case of "Friday" cameras like Friday cars, the sort that never work right even when new straight out of the box. Given the socialised means of production in the old East Germany I wouldn't be suprised if dealers encountered quite a few duds being returned to them.
On the other hand if you get a good one it will probably last forever. I've owned a couple of BC-1 bodies for years and I haven't had any problems from them or the lenses. I do get them serviced every few years. I think the pictures I get from the Zeiss Jena lenses are great. Although they are not as sharp or contrasty as modern Japanese lenses, they produce results with a rich three-dimensional tonality.
Stewart
Andy Hewitt - 15 Jun 2004 19:05 GMT > > > The manager of a local shop who seems > > > a decent sort of bloke, said that the cameras and optics are pretty [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > as sharp or contrasty as modern Japanese lenses, they produce results with a > rich three-dimensional tonality. Indeed, they certainly don't compare with the quality of image from the original Zuiko F1.4 50mm I have, but then there's not many lenses that could compete with that lens at all.
I also have a Miranda 35-70 zoom lens, and it's so bad I don't use it at all now - I wouldn't even put it on eBay.
 Signature Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
TP - 15 Jun 2004 22:52 GMT >Indeed, they certainly don't compare with the quality of image from the >original Zuiko F1.4 50mm I have, but then there's not many lenses that >could compete with that lens at all. It is a long time since I used Olympus equipment, but I clearly recall that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 was a much better performer than the f/1.4. Resolution across the frame was much improved, as was contrast, and the f/1.8 showed almost zero distortion.
Similarly, in Zuiko 28mm lenses, the f/3.5 was a superb performer while the f/2.8 was mediocre. The f/2 had the advantage of 1 2/3 stops more light than the f/3.5 but was optically no better at any aperture - except f/3.4 and wider of course!
I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a more modest maximum aperture. This is true of very many lens ranges, not just Olympus.
TP - 15 Jun 2004 23:21 GMT >I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad >lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a >more modest maximum aperture. This is true of very many lens ranges, >not just Olympus. Sorry, I meant to type "50mm f/1.4".
Andy Hewitt - 16 Jun 2004 00:09 GMT > >I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad > >lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a > >more modest maximum aperture. This is true of very many lens ranges, > >not just Olympus. > > Sorry, I meant to type "50mm f/1.4". Righto. I think we could safely say you are an anorak though :-)
 Signature Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
TP - 16 Jun 2004 00:48 GMT >> >I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad >> >lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Righto. I think we could safely say you are an anorak though :-) Yes, and proud of it!
I used Olympus SLR gear (OM1, 2 OM2s, eleven Zuiko lenses) from about 1976 to 1986 and liked it a lot.
I changed to Nikon SLRs in 1986 and to Pentax SLRs in 2002. Although I use Hasselblad 6x6 and Leica M for wedding and social photography I mostly shoot digital now.
Now it's back to Olympus with an E-1, three lenses and an E-10!
Willy Eckerslyke - 16 Jun 2004 09:43 GMT > Now it's back to Olympus with an E-1, three lenses and an E-10! Out of interest, what made you choose these?
TP - 16 Jun 2004 10:36 GMT >> Now it's back to Olympus with an E-1, three lenses and an E-10! > >Out of interest, what made you choose these? Long story. Basically I bought the E-10 as cheap backup to a Canon EOS 1D. I found it to be a superb camera when used within its limitations, which are pretty severe ... it works fine at ISO 80.
I was offered a free extended trial of the E-1 and liked it very much. Its outstanding image quality blows away anything up to 8 megapixels, and the Zuiko lenses are superb. I have two zooms and one fixed focal length lens.
They are all small and light; this is the same design ethos that spawned the OM series back in the 1970s, and it is one that I like very much. I can carry my whole E System outfit in one medium sized bag and it certainly isn't heavy.
The E System is positioned somewhere between the Canon EOS 10/Nikon D70/Nikon D100/Fuji Finepix S2 market and the Canon EOS 1D II. Its image quality is better than the consumer-grade Canons and Nikon F80-based DSLRs and comes surprisingly close to the EOS 1Ds and Kodak DCS-Pro, despite their far greater pixel count. I don't know why, but the image quality is far better than 5 megapixels would suggest.
Olympus are developing an E System body with a much higher pixel count, plus an entry-level model, and Sigma have announced their intention to market lenses for this format, so I think the future for "Four Thirds" is very bright.
Willy Eckerslyke - 17 Jun 2004 17:10 GMT >>>Now it's back to Olympus with an E-1, three lenses and an E-10! >> >>Out of interest, what made you choose these?
> Long story. <snip>
Thanks for taking the time. I've been putting off making the decision but will have to move to digital SLR soon.
Andy Hewitt - 16 Jun 2004 20:30 GMT <Snipped Text>
> >Righto. I think we could safely say you are an anorak though :-) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now it's back to Olympus with an E-1, three lenses and an E-10! Aye, that looks like you like Olympus stuff then. Me too.
 Signature Andy Hewitt ** FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS Honda Concerto 16v: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor) http://www.thehewitts.plus.com - now online
Willy Eckerslyke - 16 Jun 2004 09:41 GMT > I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad > lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a > more modest maximum aperture. This is true of very many lens ranges, > not just Olympus. Certainly true of the Contax Zeiss T* 50mm f1.4 and f1.7, though stopping down to f8 or so gives identical results from both.
TP - 16 Jun 2004 10:21 GMT >> I am not trying to say that the Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2 are bad >> lenses, merely that the best optical performance often accompanies a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Certainly true of the Contax Zeiss T* 50mm f1.4 and f1.7, though >stopping down to f8 or so gives identical results from both. For all practical purposes the f/1.4 is more than adequate. However, on bench tests the f/1.7 has a slim, but significant advantage over the f/1.4 at all apertures except those it can't reach (f/1.4-f/1.6).
|
|
|